America's """Gun""" Problem...

[Tule]

What Europe lacks is the ability to buy handguns from a private seller without as much as a background check and no means of holding the seller responsible because "Honest officer, I didn't know he was a criminal!"

Except that isn't how those who are restricted from getting guns get them. Option 1 (42%) is illegal, as in black market or stolen, and option 2 (39%) is friends and family. "Honestly officer, I didn't know my friend was a felon," doesn't hold up as well.

How do you think those guns end up on the black market? Hardly any crime guns in the US are smuggled illegally into the country, virtually all of them began as legally purchased firearms at an FFL and ended up in the hands of a criminal.

Somewhere along the way, a non-prohibited person allowed a gun to fall into the hands of a criminal with carelessness or criminal intent.
Someone should have made sure they weren't selling their gun to a prohibited person or kept their gun in a way where it couldn't be stolen.

[Spirit of Hope]

Except that isn't how those who are restricted from getting guns get them. Option 1 (42%) is illegal, as in black market or stolen, and option 2 (39%) is friends and family. "Honestly officer, I didn't know my friend was a felon," doesn't hold up as well.

How do you think those guns end up on the black market? Hardly any crime guns in the US are smuggled illegally into the country, virtually all of them began as legally purchased firearms at an FFL and ended up in the hands of a criminal.

Somewhere along the way, a non-prohibited person allowed a gun to fall into the hands of a criminal with carelessness or criminal intent.
Someone should have made sure they weren't selling their gun to a prohibited person or kept their gun in a way where it couldn't be stolen.

Guns primarily enter the black market through a small number of groups carrying out a lot of straw purchases. The study, iirc, showed something like 30% entered the black market this way. The other big provider of illegal guns are drug dealers, at about half of those illegals guns.

[Llamalandia]

Except that isn't how those who are restricted from getting guns get them. Option 1 (42%) is illegal, as in black market or stolen, and option 2 (39%) is friends and family. "Honestly officer, I didn't know my friend was a felon," doesn't hold up as well.

How do you think those guns end up on the black market? Hardly any crime guns in the US are smuggled illegally into the country, virtually all of them began as legally purchased firearms at an FFL and ended up in the hands of a criminal.

Somewhere along the way, a non-prohibited person allowed a gun to fall into the hands of a criminal with carelessness or criminal intent.
Someone should have made sure they weren't selling their gun to a prohibited person or kept their gun in a way where it couldn't be stolen.

At the end of the day though what is this theft-proof storage requirement? I mean if there is someway to keep something both accessible to the owner and impossible to be stolen why wouldn't everyone store there valuables that way? I mean even banks get robbed, it happens. Are there some irresponsible gun owners out there who leave guns just lying around? I'm sure there are. But I doubt it is more than a small minority.

Plus there are plenty of people who procure guns before becoming felons (or otherwise prohibited persons). Keep in mind merely being a criminal (ie being convicted of misdemeanors other than dv) does not impair a persons gun rights under the 2nd amendment. Not to mention "friends and family" may well be criminals and have obtained the guns illegally in the first place.

Plus the reality is a asmall percent of gun dealers are responsible for a significant amount of diversion of guns to criminals, something like 5% of licensed dealers are thought to be responsible for like 90% of all diverted guns at the retail level.

[Paddy O Fernature]

How do you think those guns end up on the black market? Hardly any crime guns in the US are smuggled illegally into the country, virtually all of them began as legally purchased firearms at an FFL and ended up in the hands of a criminal.

Somewhere along the way, a non-prohibited person allowed a gun to fall into the hands of a criminal with carelessness or criminal intent.
Someone should have made sure they weren't selling their gun to a prohibited person or kept their gun in a way where it couldn't be stolen.

At the end of the day though what is this theft-proof storage requirement? I mean if there is someway to keep something both accessible to the owner and impossible to be stolen why wouldn't everyone store there valuables that way? I mean even banks get robbed, it happens. Are there some irresponsible gun owners out there who leave guns just lying around? I'm sure there are. But I doubt it is more than a small minority.

Plus there are plenty of people who procure guns before becoming felons (or otherwise prohibited persons). Keep in mind merely being a criminal (ie being convicted of misdemeanors other than dv) does not impair a persons gun rights under the 2nd amendment. Not to mention "friends and family" may well be criminals and have obtained the guns illegally in the first place.

Plus the reality is a asmall percent of gun dealers are responsible for a significant amount of diversion of guns to criminals, something like 5% of licensed dealers are thought to be responsible for like 90% of all diverted guns at the retail level.

See, this is where gun laws start getting muddy by state to state.

In the shithole I currently reside in for example, if I'm carrying and I stop at say a post office (where I legally cannot carry inside) I'm left with little options as the law here states that it has to be under my physical control at all times outside an actual state approved safe. If I secure it inside the lockable center console of my Wrangler, then step out and lock the doors to my vehicle, I now have two locked physical barriers between my firearm and the outside world. However, the state will still throw the book at me no questions asked if while I'm inside the post office someone manages to steal my firearm from my vehicle, despite me taking every reasonable precaution to prevent the theft.

Hell, if I even go a step further and install one of those fancy vehicle mounted vault specifically designed for my model vehicle, the state will still victim blame me in the event of a theft because they don't approve these types of safes because they can be hand carried off due to a lack of physical weight. Despite the fact that these are usually bolted to the vehicles frame itself.

[Sucrati]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

[Paddy O Fernature]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

My thought?

Wad this up and throw it all away like the trash that it is.

[Kernen]

Terrible.

[G-Tech Corporation]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

My thought?

Wad this up and throw it all away like the trash that it is.

+1

I was going to go through and write "lol no" after almost every point, but this is simpler put.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't comply and I would go out my way to help others beat said regulations.

[Sucrati]

But, why is it trash? They're all common sense gun safety measures!

[Spirit of Hope]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

You would need to amend the constitution to get that through.

[Washington Resistance Army]

But, why is it trash? They're all common sense gun safety measures!

There's nothing common sense about it.

[Kernen]

But, why is it trash? They're all common sense gun safety measures!

Its definitely common sense to ban criticism of government policy.

This is trash because it shatters firearms rights, takes property without compensation, and shits over due process.

[Paddy O Fernature]

But, why is it trash? They're all common sense gun safety measures!

Its definitely common sense to ban criticism of government policy.

This is trash because it shatters firearms rights, takes property without compensation, and shits over due process.

Not to mention it's anything but fucking common sense as well. It's a garbage proposal, sorry, but it is.

[Gun Manufacturers]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

I think what you posted is full retard. You never go full retard.

Seriously, forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a minute, you have several violations of the Constitution in your proposal. Fines for criticizing "the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose"? First Amendment violation. The part about the courts? We're looking at a Separation of Powers violation right there.

[Sucrati]

But, why is it trash? They're all common sense gun safety measures!

Its definitely common sense to ban criticism of government policy.

This is trash because it shatters firearms rights, takes property without compensation, and shits over due process.

Really? No one is barred from owning a firearm, okay, those who don't turn over firearms for cash will face judicial punishment, people go to jail or face fines for other offenses, this wouldn't be any different.

I think what you posted is full retard. You never go full retard.

Seriously, forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a minute, you have several violations of the Constitution in your proposal. Fines for criticizing "the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose"? First Amendment violation. The part about the courts? We're looking at a Separation of Powers violation right there.

Rebuttal to 1st Amendment violation: There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, and restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.
Rebuttal to the 2nd Amendment violation: In Heller, the decision was made that the 2nd Amendment was not unlimited. As explained above, the reasoning behind why D.C.'s law being struck down was that the people were too restricted in their ownership of handguns. That was it, you can't restrict the person's lawful ownership of a firearm. However, if the weapon is too dangerous or unusual, then yes, the weapon can be banned.
Rebuttal to seperation of powers: It's called Jurisdiction Stripping. A constitutionally granted power of Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of Federal and State courts. Isn't SCOTUS the top Federal Court of the land?

I'm being very sarcastic and parodying how I see those who want to actually restrict firearms.

[Kernen]

Its definitely common sense to ban criticism of government policy.

This is trash because it shatters firearms rights, takes property without compensation, and shits over due process.

Really? No one is barred from owning a firearm, okay, those who don't turn over firearms for cash will face judicial punishment, people go to jail or face fines for other offenses, this wouldn't be any different.

Seizing property that was acquired legally without compensation is theft. Denying individuals the opportunity to criticize a law is suppression of the freedoms of speech and the press, and does not fall into the category of slander, sedition, threat, or obscenity, the areas the state can limit speech. It absolutely trashes firearms rights because it eliminates entire categories of firearm in common use, something protected by various SCOTUS rulings. It strips away rights from the law abiding for what reason? None of this will curb criminals from acquiring firearms. All it does is place an unreasonable burden on otherwise lawful gun owners.

Your proposal is illegal and unjust.

[Big Jim P]

Just going to leave this here.

[Free Missouri]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

in a word, no

[Free Missouri]

What kind of firearms should be banned on the Federal Level:

1. Firearms with eject-able magazines or clips. Excludes breach load firearms (shotguns, muskets, etc)
2. Firearms capable of firing one or more rounds per trigger. This includes all semi-automatic firearms. Excludes bolt action or pump action. (rifles, shotguns, etc)
3. Firearms that allow more than one round per barrel to be loaded before being fired and/or cleared. Excludes firearms with two or more barrels that do not violate the first for second category. However, revolvers would be included as they hold more than one round per barrel.
4. Firearms that are do not have a safety lock system that is more than a simple switch or button. This would require a smart gun system. Also would require a switch that can disable the firearm in case of anarchy, sedition, or other acts of mass chaos. Only the government would be in control of said switch
5. Those who work for private security firms would have firearms assigned and rounds assigned to them. Much like those who work in law enforcement and other public protection positions. However, Private firms would be required to have insurance and pay required fees per firearm. Those who don't want to pay the fees or get the required insurance will be only allowed non-lethal firearms or other means of defense.
6. Those weapons that are not in violation of the above things can be obtained, if the person is of the age of 18, not criminally or mentally barred, and a legal US resident. Said weapons can be accessed after a background check, would be required to be registered, all ammo purchases would require a separate background check.
7. There would be no grandfather clause or sunset clause.
8. Those firearms which violate the above things, would be required to be turned over to authorities. Those who resist would face fines, jail time, or hostile force. Those who criticize the actions of the authorities or the law and its purpose, would be fined.
9. The law would grant the federal, state, and local authorities to comply with the confiscation of the banned firearms. As with clause 8, those who resist, would face punishment to the varying degrees. It would be up to prosecutors to press further charges after the initial charges have been made.
10. No court would be allowed to throw out any case in the pursuit of compliance with the law.
11. The Supreme Court, nor any Federal Court, would be allowed to strike down this law. As not all firearms are banned, nor are the people being denied the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for the 2nd Amendment to be complied with is to ensure that not all types of firearms are banned, only certain types. If automatic weapons are already banned/restricted, then other types should be capable of being restricted to the same requirements.

Sound good? Also, since the Supremacy Clause would take over, all States would be required to follow these to a minimum. They're free to add their own restrictions but they cannot start out with anything less than the list above.

Thoughts?

So you basically want to make it illegal to defend yourself?

[Sucrati]

So you basically want to make it illegal to defend yourself?

Not at all! There are a variety of non-lethal means to defend yourself and others! Tasers, pepper spray, beanbag ammo, melee weapons, bow/arrows, etc. Any tools, non-lethal that is, wouldn't need to be registered, licensed, or require background checks!

In order to make it illegal for someone to defend themselves, you'd have to specifically ban it or make self-defense a punishable offense. That's actually a good idea. Of course we would need to hire more police officers and make them report and controlled by the Federal Government. This will ensure far less incidents in regards to minorities being unfairly targeted.

Just going to leave this here.

It fails because the areas surrounding Illinois have much laxer gun laws and that allows firearms to get into restricted areas within the State of Illinois.

Really? No one is barred from owning a firearm, okay, those who don't turn over firearms for cash will face judicial punishment, people go to jail or face fines for other offenses, this wouldn't be any different.

Seizing property that was acquired legally without compensation is theft. Denying individuals the opportunity to criticize a law is suppression of the freedoms of speech and the press, and does not fall into the category of slander, sedition, threat, or obscenity, the areas the state can limit speech. It absolutely trashes firearms rights because it eliminates entire categories of firearm in common use, something protected by various SCOTUS rulings. It strips away rights from the law abiding for what reason? None of this will curb criminals from acquiring firearms. All it does is place an unreasonable burden on otherwise lawful gun owners.

Your proposal is illegal and unjust.

Telling the people to actively resist the confiscations, namely through hostile force, which any form of resistance can be taken as by authorities. That would be inciting lawless action, thus not protected.

All the Federal government would need to do is declare semi-automatic and other firearms capable of holding more than a certain amount of rounds as unusual and dangerous for the general populace. Also, as the Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the courts, they can have a clause restricting the courts from taking down the law.

No law abiding citizen would be unfairly restricted from owning firearms. As all pump action, bolt action, and other firearms that are not semi auto or full auto, would be allowed to be kept by the law abiding populace. Of course this is after a very thorough background check, required training, and the necessary licensing and registration fees.

Again, I am only portraying myself in a very sarcastic manner. This is how I see gun grabbers in real life.

[Big Jim P]

Just going to leave this here.

It fails because the areas surrounding Illinois have much laxer gun laws and that allows firearms to get into restricted areas within the State of Illinois.

The whole "outside guns cause the crime problem in Chicago" argument has been debunked. You can bring in outside guns into ANY city, and those with less restrictions on law-abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional and human right to bear arms don't have anywhere NEAR Chicagos problems.

[Scotlandi]

America has no gun problem

[Big Jim P]

America has no gun problem

Yes it does: there are more guns than I have money for.

[The Skrall]

America has no gun problem

I agree. Just because there are a lot of guns in the US does not make it a "problem"

Banning guns will not help to prevent criminals from getting them. Criminals break laws, and would illegally obtain guns.

If banning guns makes it so criminals don't get them, we should ban marijuana and cocaine so criminals don't get those either. We should also make murder and rape illegal, so criminals don't do those, because criminals never break the law.